Lack of a Standard Communications Framework

The Lesson

Effective communication is fundamental to the successful operation of a managed service. It is not enough for communication to occur, it must occur through the right channels, at the right time and in a consistent manner.

As an application managed service, every client engagement is different. Some services are operated almost entirely independently, while others require close collaboration with client development teams, operational teams, business stakeholders and third-party suppliers. This variation makes communication more complex and increases the likelihood of misunderstandings if expectations are not clearly defined.

A standard communications framework establishes clear rules for how information flows between SRE and the client. It defines how work is requested, how operational changes are communicated, what information must be shared, and what responsibilities exist on both sides.

Without these standards, communication becomes inconsistent, operational risk increases, and accountability becomes difficult to establish.

---

The Problem

Communication between SRE and a client evolves naturally over the lifetime of a service. Incidents occur, releases are planned, operational changes are made, new requirements emerge and questions are asked on a daily basis.

Without agreed communication standards, every client develops their own way of interacting with SRE.

Some clients primarily use the ticketing system. Others rely heavily on Microsoft Teams, email, telephone calls or direct messages to individual engineers. Over time this creates fragmented communication, inconsistent operational processes and uncertainty about where information is recorded and who has visibility of it.

This creates a number of operational challenges.

Multiple Communication Channels

When work requests arrive through multiple channels, it becomes difficult to maintain an accurate operational record.

Examples include:

• Requests made through Microsoft Teams.
• Direct messages to engineers.
• Emails.
• Telephone calls.
• Verbal requests during meetings.
• Tickets raised within service management tooling.

Information becomes scattered across multiple systems, increasing the likelihood that requests are missed, duplicated or acted upon without appropriate tracking.

A managed service relies upon traceability. Every operational request should have a clear audit trail from initiation through to completion.

Unclear Request Management

When clients bypass the agreed service management process, work can enter the team without appropriate prioritisation or visibility.

Engineers may begin work based on an informal conversation while other planned work remains in the queue. Other engineers may have no visibility that work is being undertaken at all.

Without a standard intake process it becomes difficult to:

• Prioritise work consistently.
• Measure workload accurately.
• Report against service metrics.
• Demonstrate compliance with contractual obligations.
• Maintain a complete operational history.

This also creates unrealistic expectations around response times, particularly when requests are made directly to individual engineers.

Poor Visibility of Platform Changes

One of the most common communication failures occurs around platform changes.

Clients may perform:

• Application releases.
• Infrastructure changes.
• Network changes.
• Security changes.
• Database maintenance.
• Third-party integrations.
• Business events that significantly increase traffic.

If these activities are not communicated to SRE beforehand, engineers may spend valuable time investigating expected behaviour as though it were an operational incident.

More importantly, SRE loses the opportunity to prepare monitoring, assess operational risk or provide appropriate support during the activity.

Ambiguous Responsibilities

Without clearly defined communication responsibilities, it becomes difficult to determine accountability when issues occur.

For example, if a production deployment causes an outage but the deployment was never communicated to SRE, questions naturally arise around responsibility.

From an operational perspective, SRE cannot reasonably be expected to prepare for, monitor or support activities that it was unaware were taking place.

If communication responsibilities are not formally defined, these situations often result in unnecessary disputes rather than constructive operational improvement.

Increased Operational Risk

Operational decisions depend on timely and accurate information.

Incomplete communication increases the likelihood of:

• Delayed incident response.
• Incorrect operational decisions.
• Duplicate investigations.
• Unnecessary escalations.
• Increased incident duration.
• Incorrect assumptions regarding platform behaviour.

The quality of operational support is directly influenced by the quality of information available to the team.

Inconsistent Communication from SRE

Communication challenges are not limited to clients.

Without internal standards, different engineers may communicate incidents, maintenance activities, risks and service updates in different ways.

This creates an inconsistent experience for clients and makes it harder to build confidence in the managed service.

Clients should receive clear, predictable and professional communication regardless of which engineer is providing support.

---

The Solution

Communication should be treated as an operational process rather than an informal activity.

Both SRE and the client should understand what information needs to be communicated, how it should be communicated, who is responsible for communicating it and what happens if those processes are not followed.

The objective is to create a predictable communication model that supports reliable service operation while reducing ambiguity for both parties.

Establish a Standard Request Process

All requests for work should enter SRE through the agreed service management process.

The ticketing system should become the single authoritative source for operational work.

This provides:

• A complete audit trail.
• Consistent prioritisation.
• Workload visibility.
• SLA measurement.
• Accurate reporting.
• Shared visibility across the engineering team.

Collaboration tools such as Microsoft Teams remain valuable for discussion and clarification, but they should not replace the formal work intake process.

If work originates through another channel, it should be converted into a ticket before work begins wherever practical.

Define Communication Channels

Each communication channel should have a clearly defined purpose.

For example:

Channel	Purpose
Ticketing System	Work requests, incidents, service requests, operational tasks and approvals
Microsoft Teams	Collaboration, discussions, clarification and informational updates
Email	Formal communications, reports and contractual correspondence
Meetings	Planning, reviews, governance and operational discussions

When every communication has an appropriate home, information becomes easier to locate and operational history becomes significantly more reliable.

Define Client Communication Responsibilities

Contracts and onboarding documentation should clearly state the information clients are expected to provide.

Examples include:

• Planned releases.
• Infrastructure changes.
• Scheduled maintenance.
• Major business events.
• Security changes.
• Changes to third-party integrations.
• Planned outages.
• Changes to support contacts.
• Changes to escalation procedures.

These communications should occur within agreed notice periods appropriate to the activity.

Define SRE Communication Responsibilities

SRE should also adopt consistent communication standards.

Clients should know when they can expect communication regarding:

• Major incidents.
• Service degradation.
• Planned maintenance.
• Risk identification.
• Operational recommendations.
• Service reports.
• Problem management activities.
• Capacity concerns.
• Operational reviews.

Providing predictable communication builds trust and reduces uncertainty during operational events.

Define Communication Standards Contractually

Communication expectations should not rely solely on operational goodwill.

Where appropriate, communication obligations should be incorporated into contractual agreements or supporting service documentation.

For example:

• Clients must notify SRE of production releases within agreed notice periods.
• Planned maintenance affecting managed services must be communicated in advance.
• Operational requests must be raised through the agreed service management process.
• Platform changes that may affect service availability must be communicated before implementation.

These expectations create a shared operational model rather than relying on informal working practices.

Protect Operational Accountability

Communication obligations should also define the limits of SRE's operational responsibility.

If operational issues arise because agreed communication processes were not followed, this should be recognised during service reviews and contractual discussions.

For example, if a client performs an unannounced production deployment that results in an outage, SRE cannot reasonably be held accountable for failing to prepare for an event it had no knowledge of.

Similarly, where incidents or SLA breaches are directly attributable to failures in agreed communication processes, these should be identified as excluded from SRE performance measures where contractually appropriate.

This protects both parties by establishing clear operational accountability and encouraging adherence to agreed processes.

Standardise Internal Communication

Consistency should extend to internal SRE practices.

Engineers should follow agreed standards for:

• Incident communications.
• Client updates.
• Handover notes.
• Shift summaries.
• Escalations.
• Risk communications.
• Operational recommendations.
• Service review reporting.

Clients should receive a consistent experience regardless of which engineer or team is providing support.

Review and Improve Communication Regularly

Communication should be reviewed as part of regular service governance.

Recurring communication failures should be treated as operational improvement opportunities rather than isolated events.

Where patterns emerge, communication standards should be refined, documented and incorporated into future client onboarding.

Benefits

A standard communications framework provides benefits for both SRE and the client.

These include:

• Clear and predictable communication processes.
• Improved traceability of operational work.
• Better workload visibility and prioritisation.
• Reduced operational risk.
• Improved incident response.
• Fewer misunderstandings and disputes.
• Clear contractual accountability.
• More accurate SLA reporting.
• Consistent client experience across engineering teams.
• Improved governance and operational transparency.
• Stronger collaboration between SRE and client teams.

Every managed service relies on effective communication. While technologies, platforms and client operating models may differ, the principles of good communication remain consistent.

By establishing a standard communications framework, defining responsibilities on both sides and embedding those expectations into operational processes and contractual agreements, SRE can deliver a more predictable, transparent and professionally managed service while reducing operational risk for both the client and the support organisation.